ATRAC 64kbps v ATRAC Lossless

[marty aylands]

I recently got my very first MP3 player, an NWS706F, and I'm very pleased with it.

I've been transferring some of my CD's using ATRAC 64kbps, and I'm very surprised at how good they sound - from what I've read in various news-groups, such a low sampling rate should sound terrible, but it doesn't.

But I'm wondering if I really *should* be using ATRAC Lossless instead. I've done a couple of tracks using both and have switched from one to the other, and can't decide whether I can hear much of a difference - but the switching takes a few seconds, so it's hard to compare. And I might find I can tell the difference if I upgrade my headphones.

I'd like to put really long works on the player - symphonies lasting the best part of an hour - so 4GB won't last long if I use Lossless all the time. I know I could probably keep everything on my computer and put it on the player as needed, but I prefer the convenience of having it all on there permanently.

So I'd like your opinions - is it better to use ATRAC Lossless than ATRAC 64kbps? Or would MP3 be a good compromise, and if so, what sampling rate would people here recommend?

Thanks in advance.

[c0ldr0ses]

Well to be honest, I'm really not sure just how "lossless" atrac 3 lossless is compared to FLAC or WAV files. I myself notice a difference when switching between them. On the other hand, I would either go far left or far right on this one. atrac3 64kbps is about as small as it gets for somewhat decent sound quality(while increasing battery life). I think that if you were to use a higher atrac bitrate, it would just take up more space and there wouldn't be enough difference in sound quality to merrit the choice.

hope that was somewhat helpful.